Category Archives: Free Speech

“Don’t be fooled by Haroon Moghul,” cautions Robert Spencer, in his rebuttal of CNN’s unknown entity’s assault on Pamela Geller, whose sin was to prove that ISIS-Americans intend to decide what Americans may say about Islam’s murderous muse, The Prophet Mohammad.

The clearest indication that Haroon Moghul is a jihad terror-enabling charlatan is the fact that after jihadis attempt to commit mass murder at a free speech event, he doesn’t write a piece defending free speech and explaining why Muslims must accept it, or a piece condemning the Islamic jihadis and explaining why Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy must not be carried out in the modern age, or a piece calling for reform of the teachings and doctrines that Islamic jihadis use to justify violence and supremacism.

Oh, no. You will never see such from his august pen. What Haroon Moghul, fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, Fellow at the New America Foundation, perennial Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University, and an energetic purveyor of the spurious concept of “Islamophobia” (a propaganda term designed to intimidate people into fearing to resist jihad terror), serves up instead is yet another in today’s ever-growing pile of condemnations of Pamela Geller for daring to stand for the freedom of speech.

Moghul is desperately afraid that other Americans might realize that standing up for free speech against violent intimidation is a great idea, in the finest American tradition. That would interfere with the mainstream media’s push to get us all to silence ourselves and conform to Sharia blasphemy laws in order to save our skins. And so Moghul pens this vicious little screed in order to convince his easy marks at CNN that Pamela Geller is not really a defender of the freedom of speech but really a very bad person, and to stay on the reservation, not question the elites, and continue to allow for restrictions on the freedom of speech. …

First, let me say how grateful I am that my WND colleague, Pamela Geller, is safe and sound and still speaking her mind on matters Mohammad. As we say in Hebrew, Chazak Ve’ematz (grammatically incorrect when said to a female, but I don’t wish to complicate things here).

Next, let me say the following, given media depictions of Pamela, Robert Spencer and members of their group—who fell victim to an attack by American Islamists brandishing AK-47s and were further assailed by the craven, cowardly mainstream media: Those who call you and your outfit an “anti-Islamic hate group” are the haters. (To listen to the “Washington Compost,” in Mark Levin speak, you’d think Pamela was the offender.) There can be no doubt that the Southern Poverty Law Center, the authority media cite in their indictments of Pamela—hates for a living: the SPLC creeps hate any expression of individualism.

Thanks Pamela for doing the work most of us are afraid to do: put would-be murderers and their vampiric muse, the Prophet Muhammad, in their proper place.

Breitbart Texas “was conducting an exclusive interview with Pamela about the Mohammad Art Exhibit and Contest,” when the attack took place:

… Officers told this writer that the two suspects drove up in a car. The two occupants of the vehicle got out and immediately began shooting at the security guard.

Witnesses who spoke with this writer said they heard the initial gunshots and said it sounded like a pack of firecrackers going off. They then heard police return fire on the suspects.

The suspects were left lying in the street next to their vehicle because police were concerned there might be some type of explosive device either on their bodies or in their car.

Attendees of the event were eventually taken by a school bus to a secure location about 5 miles away from the scene.

As for Texas law enforcement; awesome job in tackling and dispatching with a pistol the two ISIS-Americans:

Enter the two gunmen, whom Garland police said drove up to a police car that was blocking an entrance to the exhibition hall and opened fire with assault rifles. Both men were quickly killed by one of the hired guards — a local traffic patrol officer whose name has not been released — who returned fire with a semiautomatic pistol. … “He did a very good job and he probably saved lives,” said Harn, the police spokesman.

Within the first year of the Red Terror reign, the Bolsheviks instituted a list of categories of subversives who would be made “a head shorter” in Trotsky’s “charming” expression, if caught talking out of turn or simply being who they were—kulaks, priests, White Guards, socialists, Mensheviks, peasants with a bad attitude, bourgeoisie, on and on. “Counterrevolutionary” speech could certainly make a man “a head shorter.”

While the cultural Marxism under which we labor today does not yet demand a man’s head—we don’t shoot, beat, drown, behead and starve people, as did the Bolsheviks–America’s Orwellian Ministries of Truth will strip the offending individual of everything he has.

No different to liberals, mainstream conservatives are a party of isms, not individualism. Like liberals, conservatives diligently examine controversial speech for signs of the prohibited “isms”: sexism, racism, ageism, etc. Were they devoted to the principles of freedom; conservatives would refuse to even debate the legitimacy of impugning a man’s character, or expunging him from polite company, for the words that roll off his tongue.

Yet any debate these characters conduct on speech is never a principled debate about debate. Self-styled, mainstream conservatives seldom recuse themselves from the act of policing speech. Rather, they join in dignifying the media circle jerk.

James Rosen is best known for having been the victim of the head of Barack Obama’s Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder. For doing his job as a reporter, this Fox News Channel reporter was framed by the same department for the crime of conspiracy to leak classified materials.

Now, from being a credible reporter at Fox News, Rosen has gone on to reinvent himself as a sometime commentator.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki and her deputy, Marie Barf, are studiously dumb chicks. Bill O’Relly was quite diplomatic when he said about the first that she was “way out of her depth” and lacked the “the gravitas for that job.”

On Fox News yesterday, reporter James Rosen defended State Department spokeswomen Jen Psaki and Marie Harf from what he deemed vicious attacks that would never be directed their way if they were men. Harf in particular has gotten lots of conservative ridicule (to put it mildly) over her comments last week that 1) the U.S. can’t just kill its way out of war with ISIS; and 2) factors like job opportunity should be considered when examining the root causes of terrorism.

Rosen said, “It won’t please my social media followers to hear me say it, but I’ve been dismayed by the treatment of Marie and Jen on Twitter and other social media.” And not only are they mocked online, he said, but it’s done “in intimately person [sic] ways that I think bespeak a certain amount of sexism.”

Rosen went on to call Tweedledum and Tweedledumber very accomplished women.

American Thinker is insufficiently scathing about the quality of Tweedledum and Tweedledumber’s accomplishments—the two embody everything that is repugnant about womanhood in America—but it’ll do:

… Marie Harf sounded like a cheesed-off sixteen-year-old the morning after the big party when she dissed O’Reilly for saying, “…that woman [Jen Psaki] looks way out of her depth.”

For teenage girls the clique is of utmost importance. When they go all panties in a wad it’s often for their BFFs. Harf don’t stand on her jays, she stands behind her blud, Psaki. Harf not only lacks gravitas, she appears to lack conscience to grasp the international purpose and life-and-death seriousness of her job, that people live or are murdered on the turn of her flippant, self-referential phraseology. Stop the world! O’Reilly called my BFF “that woman.” It is hideous that she wasted one second in these desperate times ranting about imaginary sexism. Her bosses want Harf to spout domestic sex politics. And after all, that is the only item on her resume.

The Bell Curve authors, Charles Murray—an American Enterprise Institute Scholar and the 2009 recipient of the Irving Kristol Award—and the late Richard Herrnstein, a Harvard professor, used multiple regression analysis and other perfectly conventional and uncontroversial statistical methods to arrive at some irrefutable correlations, linking the G Factor (general intelligence) to other social and demographic indices.

Frank Borzellieri, a dedicated educator in “a predominantly black and Hispanic Catholic elementary school located in the Bronx, New York,” spoke and wrote of the same facts, for which he lost his job and was expunged from our increasingly Sovietized society, accused of a thought crime: a belief in “white supremacy.”

Borzellieri is the author of six books, some of which treat racial and cultural issues. His great sin seems to consist in the fact that he dared to note that there are interracial IQ differences that correlate to some extent with other social indicia. …

… Borzellieri chose—he chose—to ply his craft as an educator tending to the needs of New York City’s black and Hispanic students. He was also elected thrice to the New York City school board where he resisted efforts to replace literature on such Western heroes as Columbus and Washington with a curriculum requiring children to read books on homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and birth control.

“Today,” writes Jack, “Borzellieri lives a lonelier—and dramatically harder—existence. The man who wants for nothing more than to resume his duties as an educator is jobless. Branded with the “R” label, he’s been shut out in the cold.

Mike Abel, the caretaker of an orthodox church, has started a ‘Go Fund Me’ page for Borzellieri. Please consider helping this casualty of Political Correctness.

As Mike Abel says, Borzellieri could be any of us.”

[SNIP]

Let me add this: The substance of Borzellieri speech is irrelevant. As this column has explained, policing what people say for political propriety is … “a dance adopted by the political establishment to cow contrarians into submission. By going on the defensive—allowing themselves to be drawn into these exchanges—libertarians are, inadvertently, conceding that speech should be policed for propriety, and that those who violate standards set by the PC set are somehow defective on those grounds alone, and deserve to be purged from ‘polite’ company.”

To add to the example given in the post I offer up another story with a particular “angle,” spun by CNN retard Fredricka Witless (whose intellectual prowess I chronicled in “Joan Rivers: Antidote to PC Totalitarianism”). Ms. Witless asks leading questions of a man she introduces as “controversial Swedish artist Lars Vilks” (who in a free society, would never be considered controversial for harming no one in the fulfillment of the requirements of his benign profession).

… He survived Saturday’s deadly shooting at a Denmark forum on freedom of expression. Vilks is no stranger to threats. He has survived two previous attempts on his life after his controversial sketch depicting the prophet Mohammad with the body of a dog in 2007. Al-Qaeda placed him on their most wanted poster, and since then, Vilks has had to travel with bodyguards and check his car for bombs. I spoke to him exclusively about the attacks in Denmark.

Essentially, Witless wants to know if this innocent cartoonist feels responsible for crimes perpetrated by others, in response to his drawings.

WHITFIELD: And I realize as an artist, your drawing of the prophet Muhammad was many years ago in 2007, and there are other artists who have rendered pictures of the prophet Muhammad and angered many in the Muslim community. There are authors, Salman Rushdie among them, and then of course, the most recent with Charlie Hebdo being targeted as a result of the same sentiment. Do you feel responsible or do you feel that you have contributed to the sentiment that have inspired some people to resort to violence, to express their anger about how the prophet Muhammad has been depicted?